Norm Smith Medallist

wow, 8.5/10?? Gee, I have a favourable outlook on it compared the critics that roasted the shit out of it but no way I'd have a movie this flawed at 8.5 (unless you shoehorn a lot of movies in the 1.5 rating points haha)

Forgetting the canonical inconstancies; the movie is best described as an absolute mess (i still don't even know what the deal with the family tree nonsense and what that's got to do with anything). Character development is basically non-existent and in some cases basically reversed from the first movie (e.g Queenie)

Having said all that, the Dumbledore scenes were well done and the blood pact is a much better reason for them avoiding each other than whatever we got previously. Action scenes were entertaining as well.

Norm Smith Medallist

wow, 8.5/10?? Gee, I have a favourable outlook on it compared the critics that roasted the shit out of it but no way I'd have a movie this flawed at 8.5 (unless you shoehorn a lot of movies in the 1.5 rating points haha)

Forgetting the canonical inconstancies; the movie is best described as an absolute mess (i still don't even know what the deal with the family tree nonsense and what that's got to do with anything). Character development is basically non-existent and in some cases basically reversed from the first movie (e.g Queenie)

Having said all that, the Dumbledore scenes were well done and the blood pact is a much better reason for them avoiding each other than whatever we got previously. Action scenes were entertaining as well.

Moderator

I wouldn’t argue with any of that except the canononical inconsistencies. It’s a magical world that Rowling has rarely if ever taken a misstep with, literally all the plot points people have issue with can be explained pretty simply or wand waved away.

Personally I liked the film, I find Newt a fantastic protagonist and for what is essentially a filler movie (eg Hunger Games 2-3) it’s still a seriously fun ride. I’d admit to not being in on Queenies character and her position quite as much but the very end was a bit of an “ohhhh of course” moment and tied that all back in.

Like I said, wouldn’t disagree with lower ratings on the film, it’s subjective after all, but I enjoyed it.

Nigel Staplecock

I have finally started reading Harry Potter to my children. My five year old loves it. I have never seen him pay such attention to a book before. It’s the highlight of my day coming home from work and reading to them (when I have them) - I have them for a whole week in a couple of weeks so looking forward to that!

He walks around the house saying “fancy seeing you here professor mcgonagall”

Norm Smith Medallist

I wouldn’t argue with any of that except the canononical inconsistencies. It’s a magical world that Rowling has rarely if ever taken a misstep with, literally all the plot points people have issue with can be explained pretty simply or wand waved away.

Its the unnecessary messy nature of everything really. What was the really the point of credence-dumbledore reveal exactly? How is that linking back to the AB vs GW fight? (which will happen after like 18 years after this movie) Why completely deviate from established character traits/behaviors e.g. Queenie?
Calling it a 'mess' is a bit of an understatement.
Compare this to something like inception. Super complex and intricate movie right; I spent like an hour on Wikipedia to see if I understood everything properly. BUT it can be broken down very simply- a team entering a shared dream state to induce inception. Nobody is confused about what the movie is or what it's trying to be.

Moderator

Its the unnecessary messy nature of everything really. What was the really the point of credence-dumbledore reveal exactly? How is that linking back to the AB vs GW fight? (which will happen after like 18 years after this movie) Why completely deviate from established character traits/behaviors e.g. Queenie?
Calling it a 'mess' is a bit of an understatement.
Compare this to something like inception. Super complex and intricate movie right; I spent like an hour on Wikipedia to see if I understood everything properly. BUT it can be broken down very simply- a team entering a shared dream state to induce inception. Nobody is confused about what the movie is or what it's trying to be.

Well I think the credence reveal is going to be a critical plot point and JK is playing a long game, it’s a divisive plot point though, if you don’t like it it’s gonna effect the whole film. There are literally hundreds of hours or reading and listening on podcasts if you wanna subject yourself.

As for the character of Queenie, I could see the motivations and they made sense to me (even though they are a departure from her initial values we established). I didn’t like her journey as such and she felt a little shoe horned until the end when it made perfect sense why it was her (which again looks to me like Rowling wrote her in the first film with this progression in mind).

Ironically I watched inception on Sunday for the 3rd time. I still don’t think it’s as complex as many others do and frankly on rewatch I forgot how much clunky exposition is given, it’s actually spelled out by the characters every single step of th way, JGLs whole character is just there to read the script for the audience. I like that Beasts hasn’t done that, you’re eithher up to speed with this or you’re not, we won’t explain it all to you.

Brownlow Medallist

I have finally started reading Harry Potter to my children. My five year old loves it. I have never seen him pay such attention to a book before. It’s the highlight of my day coming home from work and reading to them (when I have them) - I have them for a whole week in a couple of weeks so looking forward to that!

He walks around the house saying “fancy seeing you here professor mcgonagall”

I know JK a genius and everything but im really not sure about this... I reckon they made this up just then- if not that's just v. poor execution.

Ironically I watched inception on Sunday for the 3rd time. I still don’t think it’s as complex as many others do and frankly on rewatch I forgot how much clunky exposition is given, it’s actually spelled out by the characters every single step of th way, JGLs whole character is just there to read the script for the audience. I like that Beasts hasn’t done that, you’re eithher up to speed with this or you’re not, we won’t explain it all to you.

I can't believe you're criticising Inception's exposition tbh- I thought it was expertly delivered (maybe the business dude was hard to understand sometimes). Like "whose subconscious are we going into exactly?" is a question that not only the audience would want to be answered but also a realistic question for the character to have asked. Compare that with other movies where it's painfully obvious that the exposition dump is just for the audience.

Moderator

I know JK a genius and everything but im really not sure about this... I reckon they made this up just then- if not that's just v. poor execution.

I can't believe you're criticising Inception's exposition tbh- I thought it was expertly delivered (maybe the business dude was hard to understand sometimes). Like "whose subconscious are we going into exactly?" is a question that not only the audience would want to be answered but also a realistic question for the character to have asked. Compare that with other movies where it's painfully obvious that the exposition dump is just for the audience.

It’s a quick read and worth it for the snippets of information we learnt and the character development . I consider it more of an adjunct than a true part of the series due to some of the plot elements.